C-116/83
ECLI:EU:C:1984:226
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61983CJ0116
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
J U D G M E N T OF T H E C O U R T (SECOND CHAMBER) 21 J U N E 1984 1
Asbl Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles ν Adriano Fantozzi and SA Les Assurances Populaires (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel Mons)
( C o m p u l s o r y insurance of m o t o r vehicles)
Case 116/83
Approximation of laws — Civil liability motor insurance — Directive 72/166 — Settlement of claims — Settlement by the national bureau of the place in which the accident occurred — Conditions (Council Directive 72/166, Art. 2 (2))
Article 2 (2) of Directive 72/166 must in the territory of another Member State, be interpreted as meaning that, with if the driver of the vehicle obtained it by reference to the payment of com theft or duress, the national insurers' pensation for damage caused in the bureaux are under an obligation to settle territory of one Member State of the such claims upon the terms laid clown by Community by a vehicle normally based their own national legislation.
In Case 116/83
R E F E R E N C E t o t h e C o u r t u n d e r Article 177 of t h e E E C T r e a t y b y t h e C o u r d'Appel [ C o u r t of Appeal], M o n s (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings p e n d i n g before t h a t court between
ASBL BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES, Brussels,
and
1. A D R I A N O FANTOZZI, of F r a m e r i e s ,
2. SA L E S ASSURANCES POPULAIRES, Brussels,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83
o n the interpretation of Council Directive 7 2 / 1 6 6 / E E C of 24 April 1972 o n 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 a n d 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),
T H E C O U R T (Second C h a m b e r )
composed of: K. B a h l m a n n , President of Chamber, P. Pescatore and O. Due, Judges,
Advocate G e n e r a l : Sir G o r d o n Slynn Registrar: D . L o u t e r m a n , Administrator
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
The facts of the case, the course of the. registered in France. Civil liability in procedure and the observations sub- respect of that vehicle was covered by mitted under Article 20 of the Protocol an insurance policy underwritten by on the Statute of the Court of Justice of Assurances Mutuelles of Niort (France). the EEG may be summarized as follows : That company however refused to accept liability, relying on the terms of its policy which exclude theft from accident cover. Mr Fantozzi and Assurances Populaires I — Facts and p r o c e d u r e therefore had recourse against the Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles [Belgian Motor Insurance Bureau, herei- On 21 August 1976, at Athis in Belgium, nafter referred to as "Bureau Belge"] the car belonging to Mr Fantozzi, a and requested the Tribunal de Première Belgian national, which was insured Instance [Court of first instance], Mons, against physical damage with Assurances to order it to pay damages in respect of Populaires in Belgium, was damaged the loss which they had sustained. The through the established negligence of Tribunal allowed that claim by a the driver of a stolen car which was judgment of 26 January 1979.
BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / FANTOZZI
Bureau Belge appealed against that on national insurers' bureaux includes judgment maintaining that the Tribunal the duty to pay compensation for had incorrectly interpreted the Law of damage caused in the territory of one 4 July 1972 amending Article 2 (2) of Member State of the EEC by a vehicle the Law of 1 July 1956 on compulsory normally based in the territory of insurance against civil liability in respect another Member State of the EEC if the of motor vehicles. driver of the vehicle acquired it by theft or duress?"
The Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Mons, noted that that national provision The order for reference was registered at the Court on 24 June 1983. had been adopted pursuant to Directive 72/166, whereby a more favourable status was to be granted to vehicles Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol normally based within the territory of a on the Statute of the Court of Justice Member State. Such vehicles were to be of the EEC, written observations were admitted into Belgium without an inter- submitted on 14 September 1983 by the national insurance certificate, on con- Government of the French Republic, dition that the bureau appointed for that represented by Jean-Paul Costes, a purpose guaranteed the settlement, in member of the general secretariat of the accordance with the provisions of Inter-ministerial Committee for Ques- Belgian law, of the claims of persons to tions of European Economic Cooper- whom damage was caused in Belgium by ation, acting as Agent; on 20 September such vehicles, irrespective of whether 1983 by the United Kingdom, re- the obligation to effect insurance was presented by C. P. J. Muttukumaru of complied with. Article 2 (2) of the the Treasury Solicitor's Department, aforementioned directive also provided acting as Agent; and on 21 September for the conclusion of an agreement 1983 by the Government of the Italian between the six national insurers' Republic, represented by Pier Giorgio bureaux "under the terms of which each Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato. national bureau guarantees the settle- ment, in accordance with the provisions of its own national law on compulsory insurance, of claims in respect of Upon hearing the report of the Judge- accidents occurring in its territory caused Rapporteur and the views of the by vehicles normally based in the Advocate General, the Court decided to territory of another Member State, open the oral procedure without any whether or not such vehicles are preparatory inquiry and to assign the insured". The agreement provided for case to the Second Chamber. by that directive was concluded on 16 October 1972. Finding that the provisions of Community law in question had been interpreted differently by the II — S u m m a r y of w r i t t e n o b s e r - Belgian and French courts, the Cour v a t i o n s s u b m i t t e d to the d'Appel, Mons, referred the following Court question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: The Government of the French Republic refers to the observations which it "Does it follow from the rules of submitted in Case 64/83. It first observes Community law that the duty imposed that, pursuant to the principles set out in
JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83
the directive itself, it is clear that the uninsured vehicles registered in another abolition of insurance checks at the Member State. frontier is linked to the fundamental guarantee, offered to a Member State into whose territory vehicles normally based in other Member States enter, that The French Government emphasizes that the victims of any damage caused by any other interpretation would deprive a vehicle will be compensated in ac- the directive of part of its purpose: the cordance with the national law of the victims of accidents caused in France by State upon whose territory the accident vehicles registered in other Member occurs, on the basis of an agreement States, in circumstances where a French between the national insurance bureaux, insurer might be able to resist a claim, irrespective of whether such vehicles are would be at risk of receiving com- insured. pensation for the damage suffered neither from the Fonds de Garantie Automobile nor from the Bureau Central Français, acting on behalf of its count- The provisions of national law envisaged erpart in the State in which the vehicle by the directive are those relating to the was registered. settlement of accident claims; more precisely, the provisions relating to the settlement of such claims within the limits of the compulsory insurance The United Kingdom first points out that required by the Member State on whose Article 2 (2) of Directive 72/166 does territory the accident occurs, regard not impose a duty, but merely specifies being had to the scope of such legis- when the provisions of the directive lation, but without consideration of the other than Articles 3 and 4 are to take exceptions from the cover which may effect, that is if and when the nine be included in the contract under the national bureaux of the Member States relevant law. conclude an agreement in accordance with the provision in question.
That interpretation is in accordance with The United Kingdom further remarks the principle of the directive; it pred- that the supplementary agreement be- ominated in the drafting of the relevant tween national bureaux of 16 October legislation on the subject. That was why 1972 is not an act of an institution of the the French Law of 21 December 1972 Community and that therefore the Court extended the territorial jurisdiction of does not have jurisdiction to interpret the Fonds de Garantie Automobile the effect of that agreement. The Court [Motor vehicle guarantee fund] in order should therefore confine itself to to enable it to meet the cost of intepreting Article 2 (2) of the directive. compensation in respect of accidents caused abroad by uninsured vehicles registered in France, such compensation having previously been paid by the In that regard, the United Kingdom national bureau of the country where the points out that Directive 72/166 does accident occurred; by way of recipro- not require any degree of harmonization cation, the Fonds de Garantie Auto- of the Member States' national laws on mobile is not required to compensate the compulsory insurance. The directive was victims of accidents caused in France by adopted against the background of the
BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / FANTΌΖΖΙ
green card system, which envisages the national insurance bureaux of 16 Oc settlement of claims required to be tober 1972 states that when a vehicle covered by compulsory insurance in normally based in the territory of one accordance with the law of the Member State enters the territory of Contracting State where the accident another Member State and is there giving rise to the claim occurs. The subject to compulsory third-party in words "in accordance with the provisions surance, the "owner, use and/or driver of national law on compulsory in shall be deemed to be insured within surance" in Article 2 (2) therefore refei the meaning of the uniform agreement to "the laws of the Member State on between bureaux and to be holders of a compulsory insurance where the accident valid certificate of insurance issued by giving rise to the claim occurs." If those the bureau responsible for the territory in laws do not require insurance in certain which such vehicle is normally based circumstances, in particular in the case of theft of the vehicle, then claims arising out of the use of the vehicle in those circumstances are outside the scope of the agreement envisaged by the directive. Article 1 (e) of the uniform agreement between bureaux provides that a policy of insurance issued to an insured to cover liability arising out of the use of a vehicle "shall be deemed to be a policy Consequently, the United Kingdom giving exactly the indemnity required suggests that the Court should answer by the compulsory motor insurance law the question submitted by the national of the country in which an accident court as follows: occurs".
Being of the view that Article 2 of "Article 2 (2) of the directive as Directive 72/166 should be interpreted in amended does not itself impose an the light of the supplementary agreement obligation on the national bureaux of the of 16 October 1972 and of the uniform Member States but it envisages that the agreement, the Italian Government national bureaux of the Member States maintains that the national bureau which would conclude an agreement guaran deals with the claim is bound to act in teeing settlement of claims arising out of the same way as the national insurers the use of a vehicle required, by the law and therefore becomes guarantor in the of the Member State where the accident conditions laid down by its own national occurs, to be covered by insurance and legislation on compulsory insurance. The this would include claims in respect of a Community provision should therefore vehicle acquired by theft or duress if the be interpreted as referring to the whole national law of the Member State where of the system of compulsory insurance in the accident occurs requires claims force in a country and not, in the limited arising out of the use of a vehicle sense, as referring only to the legal acquired by theft or duress to be covered ceilings which are laid clown or to other by compulsory insurance." particular conditions.
Consequently, the Italian Government The Italian Government states that suggests that the question submited Article 2 of the agreement betwen the should be answered as follows:
JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83
"The 'provisions of its own national law Such compulsory insurance had to be on compulsory insurance' mentioned in made to cover accidents caused any Article 2 (2) of Council Directive where in the Community; 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 refer to the whole system of compulsory in- surance in force in each country; those Vehicles normally based outside a conditions include that relating to Community country had to be prevented the effectiveness or otherwise of the from entering it unless civil liability was guarantee of insurance for claims arising insured against in the entire territory of out of the use of a vehicle which the the Community. driver acquired by theft or duress." An additional element in the form of the insurers' bureaux was added to help motorists involved in accidents outside III — Oral procedure their country. These bureaux, set up in the six Member States of the period, Asbl Bureau Belge des Assureurs Auto- were to guarantee settlement of claims in mobiles, represented by Mr Omneslaghe, the territory of the State in which they of the Brussels Bar, the United Kingdom, had been established in accordance with represented by Mr Bellis of the Treasury the provisions of the national law in Solicitor's Department, and the Com- question. mission of the European Communities, represented by J. Delmoly, acting as In the view of Bureau Belge, the Court Agent, presented oral argument at the has no jurisdiction to interpret the con sitting on 12 April 1984. tractual terms of the agreement between the insurers' bureaux and must confine Asbl Bureau Belge des Assureurs Auto- its interpretation to the meaning of mobiles, expressed the opinion that the Article 2 (2) of the directive. question referred to the Court is not really answered by the decisions given by it in related fields, particularly the Having stated that the agreement judgment of 9 February 1984 (Case between the insurers' bureaux had been 64/83, Bureau Central Français ν Fonds concluded in accordance with the de Garantie Automobile. [1984] ECR provisions of the directive, Bureau Belge 689). considered the contested provision. In its view, the position of the French Bureau Belge stated that the directive in Government and of Mr Fantozzi, who question sought to attain a modest argue that Bureau Belge is obliged to objective of an essentially psychological provide cover, implies that the words "in character: that every European citizen accordance with the provisions of its could move from one Member State to own national law" lose all meaning. In another without being obliged to show a fact, that expression means that Bureau certificate of insurance. Belge is obliged to act only in so far as Belgian national law imposes an obligation to insure, even if the driver T o attain such an objective, three did not take out such compulsory intermediate objectives had to be insurance. achieved :
Insurance against civil liability in respect That analysis is reinforced by the new of the use of motor vehicles had to be Community directive on this subject made compulsory; adopted on 30 December 1983.
BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / FANTOZZI
Consequently, Bureau Belge suggests raised by the Cour d'Appel, Mons, that the answer to be given to the Cour should be identical to that given by the d'Appel, Mons, should be as follows: Court on 9 February 1984 in Case 64/83, (Bureau Central Français ν Fonds "Article 2 (2) does not of itself create de Garantie Automobile), that is to say, any obligation on the part of the that regard should be had to the national insurers' bureaux; such an obligation law of the State in which the accident derives exclusively from the agreement. occurred. In using the expression 'in accordance with the provisions of its own national law', the Community legislature was The Commission adds that the second referring to the entire body of rules directive of 30 December 1983, ap dealing with compulsory insurance in plicable from 31 December 1987, will each country, and consequently, if those modify the existing system by removing rules exempt from compulsory insurance the possibility of pleading theft against a cover vehicles which have been stolen or third-party victim but allowing Member of which possession has been obtained by States, by way of derogation, to provide fraud, that exemption must also apply for a national formula which nonetheless to the obligations undertaken by the eliminates all risk of disputes and legal national bureaux by virtue of the proceedings at international level. agreement."
The Commission considers essentially The Advocate General delivered his that the reply to be given to the question opinion at the sitting on 12 April 1984.
Decision
1 By an order of 7 June 1983, which was received at die Court on 24 June 1983, the Cour d'Appel, Mons (Belgium), referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 2 (2) 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 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).
2 That question was raised in the context of proceedings between Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles, on the one hand, and Mr A. Fantozzi and Les Assurances Populaires, Brussels, on the other.
3 Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles is one of the national bureaux set up in the framework of the international insurance card system ("green card
JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83
system"). One of the characteristics of the system is that it is based on private law agreements between the national insurers' bureaux, on the basis of a standard contract called the "Uniform Agreement between Bureaux". By virtue of those agreements, each national bureau undertakes, on the one hand, to settle, in its own country, claims in respect of accidents caused by vehicles registered in the other member countries, and on the other hand, to reimburse foreign bureaux which have settled claims in respect of accidents caused by vehicles insured in its own country.
4 On 21 August 1976, at Athis (Belgium), a car insured with Les Assurances Populaires in Belgium and owned by Mr Fantozzi, a Belgian national, was damaged through the proven negligence of the driver of a stolen car registered in France.
5 The French insurance company which had insured that car against civil liability denied liability on the basis of the terms of its policy which excluded cover in case of theft. Consequently, Mr Fantozzi and Les Assurances Popu- laires had recourse against Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles and requested the Tribunal de Première Instance, Mons, to order it to pay damages in respect of the loss which they had sustained.
6 The Tribunal allowed that claim by a judgment of 26 January 1979. Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles appealed, maintaining essentially that the Tribunal had incorrectly interpreted Belgian law.
7 The Cour d'Appel, Mons, noted that the national legislation, and in particular the Law of 4 July 1972, had been adopted pursuant to Directive 72/166 and that, in its view, that directive granted a more favourable, status to vehicles normally based within the territory of a Member State, because such vehicles were to be admitted into Belgium without an international insurance certificate, on condition that the bureau appointed for that purpose guaranteed the settlement of claims in respect of damage caused in Belgium by those vehicles irrespective of whether the obligation to effect insurance
BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / ΡΛΝΤΟΖΖΙ
had ben complied with. Furthermore, Article 2 (2) of that directive also provided for the conclusion of an agreement between the six national insurers' bureaux; such an agreement was indeed concluded on 16 October 1972.
8 Noting that the Community provisions in question have been the subject of differing interpretations by the Belgian and French courts, the Cour d'Appel, Mons, asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following question:
"Does it follow from the rules of Community law that the duty imposed on national insurers' bureaux includes the duty to pay compensation for damage caused in the territory of one Member State of the EEC by a vehicle normally based in the territory of another Member State of the EEC if the driver of the vehicle acquired it by theft or duress?"
9 Before considering the problem raised by that question, it should be noted that Council Directive 72/166 established a system whose essential charac teristics, clearly set out in the last three recitals in the preamble, may be summarized as follows:
Abolition of checks on green cards for vehicles normally based in a Member State entering the territoiy of another Member State by means of an agreement between the six national insurers' bureaux, whereby each national bureau guarantees compensation, in accordance with the provisions of national law, in respect of any loss or injury giving entitlement to compensation caused in its territoiy by such a vehicle, whether or not insured; and
A presumption that all Community motor vehicles travelling in Community territory are covered by insurance, implying that the national law of each Member State should provide for the compulsory insurance of vehicles against civil liability.
10 Article 2 (2) of the directive provides that:
"As regards vehicles normally based in the territoiy of a Member State, the provisions of this directive, with the exception of Articles 3 and 4, shall take effect:
JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83
After an agreement has been concluded between the six national insurers' 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."
1 1 Since the Court only has jurisdiction to interpret Article 2 (2) of Directive 72/166, and is precluded from interpreting any later contractual provision, the question raised seeks in effect to ascertain whether the guarantee which each national bureau must provide includes the obligation to settle claims in respect of accidents caused on its territory by vehicles normally based on the territory of another Member State, even though the driver of the vehicle in question acquired it by theft or duress, and notwithstanding any exclusions from insurance cover provided for in the legislation of the State in question.
12 The parties to the action maintained the positions that they had already defended in Case 64/83 (judgment of 9. 2. 1984, Bureau Central Français ν Fonds de Garantie Automobile, [1984] ECR 689). For its part, the French Government contends that the provisions of Article 2 (2) of the directive at issue mean that, in the present case, Bureau Belge des Assureurs is obliged to cover even the consequences of accidents caused by a stolen vehicle, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of Belgian law. On the other hand, the Italian Government, the United Kingdom, the Commission and Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles are of the opinion that the directive can only be interpreted as meaning that claims for compensation against vehicles from other Member States must be treated in the same way as claims made against vehicles covered by compulsory insurance in the State whose bureau is called upon to settle the claim.
13 As the Court held in the aforesaid judgment of 9 February 1984 in Case 64/83, it follows from a consideration of Directive 72/166 that "as regards vehicles to which the directive applies, the national bureau of the Member State in which the accident has occurred guarantees the settlement of claims in respect of accidents which are required to be covered under the compulsory insurance scheme of that country, within the limits and in
BUREAU DELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / FANTOZZI
accordance with the provisions of its national law, whether or not the driver was actually insured".
1 4 Consequently, the reply to the question raised should be that Article 2 (2) of Directive 72/166 must be interpreted as meaning that, with reference to the payment of compensation for damage caused in the territory of one Member State of the EEC by a vehicle normally based in the territory of another Member State of the EEC, if the driver of the vehicle obtained it by theft or duress, the national insurers' bureaux are under an obligation to settle such claims upon the terms laid down by their own national legislation.
15 The judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 1984 (Case 64/83 Bureau Central Français v Fonds de Garantie Automobile), will be annexed to the present judgment, to which it is complementary.
Costs
16 T h e c o s t sincurred by the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the Italian Republic, the United Kingdom and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted obser- vations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
T H E C O U R T (Second Chamber),
in answer to the question referred to it by the Cour d'Appel, Mons, Belgium, by order of 7 June 1983, hereby rules:
Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, with reference to the payment of compensation for damage caused in the territory of one Member State of the EEC by a vehicle normally based in the territory of another Member State of the
OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — CASE 116/83
EEC, if the driver of the vehicle obtained it by theft or duress, the national insurers' bureaux are under an obligation to settle such claims upon the terms laid down by their own national legislation.
Bahlmann Pescatore Due
Delivered in o p e n court in L u x e m b o u r g o n 21 J u n e 1984.
For the Registrar H . A. Rühi K. Bahlmann Principal Administrator President of the Second Chamber
O P I N I O N O F A D V O C A T E G E N E R A L SIR G O R D O N S L Y N N D E L I V E R E D O N 12 A P R I L 1984
My Lords, clause in the insurance policy which excluded liability for an accident caused by a stolen car driven by the thief. The company also relied on the fact that, On 21 August 1976 there was an under French law, insurance cover is not accident between two motor cars, one required where losses are caused by a of them owned by a Mr Fantozzi, a vehicle which has been stolen. resident of the Kingdom of Belgium, the other registered in France but driven by Mr Fantozzi brought proceedings against a man who had stolen it. the Bureau Belge des Assureurs Auto- mobiles, which is the national bureau representing insurance companies in The latter car was insured by its owner Belgium. At first instance, the court held with a French insurance company. That that the Bureau was liable to compensate company refused to accept liability for Mr Fantozzi for the damage caused. The the damage to the car, relying on a Bureau appealed to the Court of Appeal