C-251/83

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1984 — CASE 251/83

implementing rules in Articles 48, 59 their specific object or effect the and 65 are intended to eliminate all restriction of patterns of exports and measures which, in the fields of free thereby the establishment of a movement of workers and freedom to difference in treatment between the provide services, treat a national of domestic trade of a Member State and another Member State more severely its export trade, in such a way as or place him in a situation less advan- to provide a special advantage for tageous, from a legal or factual point national products or for the domestic of view, than that of one of the market of the State concerned. Member State's own nationals in the National rules do not fall within that same circumstances. category if they merely authorize They do not, however, preclude the insurance companies to take into application in motor-vehicle insurance account in their tariff conditions contracts of tariff conditions based particular circumstances in which on objective actuarial factors under vehicles are used which increase or which no-claims bonuses are not diminish the insurance risk, such as, granted in respect of vehicles for example, the use of vehicles registered under customs plates. registered under customs plates, in respect of which Article 34 does not 3. Article 34 of the Treaty applies only prohibit the refusal of no-claims to national measures which have as bonuses.

In Case 2 5 1 / 8 3

R E F E R E N C E t o the C o u r t u n d e r Article 177 of the E E C T r e a t y by the Amtsgericht (Local C o u r t ) Aachen for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings p e n d i n g before t h a t court between

composed of: C. Kakouris, President of Chamber, U. Everling and Y. Galmot, Judges,

Advocate General: C. O . Lenz Registrar: H . A. Rühi, Principal Administrator

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of into account the insured person's driving the procedure and the observations record, that is to say, a tariff without a submitted under Article 20 of the "no-claims bonus". It appears from the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of file relating to the main action that Mr Justice of the EEC may be summarized Haug-Adrion had driven for several as follows: years without causing any accident and was therefore, in the category of contract which had previously existed I — Facts and p r o c e d u r e between him and the insurance company, entitled to the highest rate of discount. Mr Haug-Adrion has brought an action 1. The plaintiff in the main pro- before the Amtsgericht Aachen for the ceedings, Mr Haug-Adrion, is a German transfer of that discount to the new type national. He is an official of the of contract (registration with customs European Communities in the service of plates). the Commission and lives in Brussels. In 1981 he bought a motor car in the 2. In his action brought on 7 February Federal Republic of Germany and 1983 he claimed repayment of that part obtained customs registration plates for of the insurance premium which he it, since he intended to export it to would not have had to pay had he been Belgium. The third-party liability in- granted a discount, namely a sum of DM surance required for the registration of 103.33. the vehicle was issued to Mr Haug- Adrion by the Frankfurter Versi- In support of his conclusions he argued cherungs-AG, which for the insurance of in particular that the insurance com- vehicles with customs registration plates pany's tariff conditions, pursuant to does not apply its usual system of which no discount may be granted in an charges but instead applies a tariff which insurance contract in respect of a vehicle in calculating premiums does not take bearing customs registration plates, are

contrary to the prohibition of discrimi- resented by Martin Seidel and Ernst nation laid down in Articles 7 and 65 of Roder, acting as Agents, and by the the EEC Treaty, in so far as they deprive Commission of the European Com- the plaintiff, as a foreign resident, of the munities, represented by Christoph Bail, benefit of premium reductions granted a member of its Legal Department, on an individual basis. acting as Agent. The plaintiff in the main proceedings submitted observations which were held to be out of time and 3. By order of 26 October 1983, therefore inadmissible. received at the Court Registry on 10 November 1983, the Amtsgericht Aachen first asked the Court for a preliminary 5. By order of 30 May 1984, the Court, ruling on the following question, as upon hearing the report of the Judge framed by the plaintiff in the main Rapporteur and the views of the action : Advocate General, decided to assign the case to the Third Chamber, pursuant to "Is it compatible with the EEC Treaty Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure, and and other provisions of Community law to open the oral procedure without any that officially approved conditions of preparatory inquiry. insurance for compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance systematically exclude from personal tariff reductions accorded to the residents of the country in which II — T h e legal context: the the said conditions were approved German insurance legis- insured persons resident in other lation countries of the European Com- munities?" 1. In the Federal Republic of Germany motor vehicles — whether or not they By order of 14 November 1983, received are normally located in the country — at the Court Registry on 21 November may be used on public roads and in 1983, the Amtsgericht supplemented its public places only if there is insurance order of 26 October 1983 and rephrased covering the user, the owner and the the question in the following more driver providing against personal injury precise manner: and material or other pecuniary damage "Is it compatible with the EEC Treaty which may be caused in the course of the and other provisions of Community law vehicle's use (Paragraph 1 of the Law of that insured persons resident in another 5 April 1965 on liability insurance for country of the European Community vehicles, Bundesgesetzblatt (Official and driving a motor car with customs Journal — BGBl.) I, p. 213, as last registration plates are not granted no- amended by the Law of 29 March 1983, claims discounts?" BGBl. I, p. 377, and Paragraph 1 of the Law of 24 July 1956 on liability insurance for foreign vehicles and 4. In accordance with Article 20 of the trailers, BGBl. I, p. 667, as last amended Protocol on the Statute of the Court of by the Law of 18 March 1975 modifying Justice of the European Economic the distribution of administrative com- Community, written observations were petence, BGBl. I, p. 705). submitted by the Frankfurter Versi- cherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, 6000 Frank- furt, represented by Messrs Gleiss, Lutz, 2. Vehicles not yet licensed for use Hootz, Hirsch and Partners, Rechts- which are exported to a foreign country, anwälte, by the Government of the travelling under their own power, and Federal Republic of Germany, rep- which therefore bear customs registration

4. The companies are not at liberty to (3) Characteristics or uses of the motor organize the rate structure as they see fit. vehicle or trailer which increase or They are required by the Regulation on diminish the insurance risk may motor vehicle insurance tariffs (of 20 also be taken into account in November 1967, as last amended by the determining the companies' tariffs. Regulation of 2 December 1982, Bun- This applies in particular to motor desanzeiger (Official Gazette) No 228 of vehicles or trailers which have 8 December 1982) to abide by actuarial additional equipment for the principles. Article 6 of the regulation transport of particular goods." specifies that "risks which have similar characteristic features are to be grouped in clearly definable risk classes." As regards insurance rate structures, Article 7 of the regulation provides: The use of a system of discounts and surcharges in fixing insurance tariffs is therefore not required but simply per- mitted. "(1) The companies' tariffs shall be structured according to risk factors attaching to the insured motor vehicle or trailer which determine 5. With regard to the granting of the the type and magnitude of the risk no-claims bonus, Article 20 (3) of the (objective risk factors). They in- Regulation on motor vehicle insurance clude in particular technical charac- tariffs provides that where a policyholder

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1984 — CASE 251/83

Its letter of 29 January 1981, the European order was therefore, in effect, a general Insurance Committee asked insurers in request to the Court for legal infor- the Member States to take into account mation. as far as possible, and in accordance with The defendant in the main action adds their practice, previous contracts of new that it does not see which provisions of policyholders coming from other Mem- German law or what aspects of the ber States, that is, to take into account conduct of a German insurance company the claims record of the driver in the are to be evaluated in accordance with country in which he previously resided. the rules of the Treaty. As early as 1971 and 1972 the Verband der Haftpflichtversicherer, Unfallver- sicherer, Autoversicherer and Rechts- (b) The Commission points out that it is schutzversicherer (Association of liability, the second order, that of 14 November accident, motor-vehicle and legal- 1983, which must be considered to be protection insurers) recommended to its the actual reference. members that in calculating discounts Although it agrees that the wording of they should also, subject to certain the request for a preliminary ruling is conditions, take into account claim-free imprecise, it considers that the summary periods completed abroad, and it of the facts and other information summarized that recommendation in a provided by the Amtsgericht make it letter of 31 October 1977 in the possible to determine which provisions following terms: "A claim-free period of Community law may be relevant completed abroad is recognized if an and require interpretation. The subject- attestation in due form from a foreign matter of the request is therefore insurer is presented." According to the sufficiently identifiable. Commission that recommendation has been followed in Belgium as well as in the Federal Republic of Germany. 2. Observations concerning the actuarial reasons put forward for the absence of discounts in insurance contracts relating to motor vehicles bearing customs

HAUG-ADRION / FRANKFURTER VERSICHERUNGS-AG

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1984 — CASE 251/83

It does not constitute discriminatory treatment applied by the State of (d) Finally, the Commission argues that establishment; furthermore, the measures the non-application of a no-claims bonus in question do not specifically concern in the case of a vehicle registered under migrant workers but affect any person customs plates does not seem contrary to who, in the Federal Republic of the principle of freedom to provide Germany, acquires a motor vehicle with services (Articles 59, 60 and 65 of the international registration and customs EEC Treaty) or to the rules on plates, even if he does not change his competition laid down by Articles 85 and place of work or residence. 86 of the EEC Treaty.

HAUG-ADRION / FRANKFURTER VERSICHERUNGS-AG

IV — Oral procedure After the hearing and with the At the sitting on 27 September 1984 oral permission of the President of the Third argument was presented by the fol- Chamber, on 4 October 1984 Mr lowing: Dieter Rogalla, for Mr Haug- Rogalla submitted an extract from the Adrion; Christian Hootz, for the Frank- Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette) con- furter Versicherungs-AG; Ernst Roder taining the German regulations on and Norbert Walter of the Federal insurance tariffs. Ministry for Economic Affairs, for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany; and Christoph Bail, for the Commission of the European Com- The Advocate General delivered his munities. opinion at the sitting on 15 November 1984.

Decision

1 By an order of 26 October 1983 which was received at the Court Registry on 10 November 1983, supplemented by a second order of 14 November 1983 which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1983, the Amtsgericht [Local Court] Aachen, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty a question on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Community law, in order to decide whether an insurance scheme under which no-claims bonuses were not granted to owners of vehicles bearing customs registration plates was compatible with Community law.

6 By order of 26 October 1983 the Amtsgericht first asked the Court for a preliminary ruling on the following question, as framed by the plaintiff in the main proceedings :

"Is it compatible with the EEC Treaty and other provisions of Community law that officially approved conditions of insurance for compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance systematically exclude from personal tariff reductions accorded to the residents of the country in which the said conditions were approved insured persons resident in other countries of the European Communities?"

7 By a second order made on 14 November 1983, which should be regarded as having replaced the previous order, the Amtsgericht rephrased the question in the following terms :

"Is it compatible with the EEC Treaty and other provisions of Community law that insured persons resident in another country of the European Community and driving a motor car with customs registration plates are not granted no-claims discounts?"

T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o u r t

8 According to the Frankfurter Versicherungs-AG, the defendant in the main proceedings, the question thus asked is "inadmissible" since it is couched in such general terms that it is not possible for the Court to reply by giving an interpretation of the Treaty. Since the Amtsgericht did not refer to any provision of Community law for which it sought an interpretation and did not show to what extent such a provision might be relevant to its decision, its order amounted to a general request to the Court for legal information.

13 In the light of the oral argument presented to the Court, the question put by the Amtsgericht must be regarded as also asking whether the refusal to grant a bonus to the plaintiff in the main proceedings was contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty, which prohibits all discrimination based on nationality between workers who are nationals of the Member States, as regards employment,

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1984 — CASE 251/83

remuneration and other conditions of work and employment, and also to Articles 30 and 34 of the Treaty concerning the elimination of quantitative restrictions in trade between Member States.

1 4 With regard first to the general prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 7 and the implementing rules in Articles 48, 59 and 65, it must be pointed out that those provisions are intended to eliminate all measures which, in the fields of free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, treat a national of another Member State more severely or place him in a situation less advantageous, from a legal or factual point of view, than that of one of the Member State's own nationals in the same circum- stances.

15 In order to show that the provisions of Community law on which he relies were contravened, the plaintiff in the main proceedings simply asserted that discimination resulted from the fact that the refusal, in the Federal Republic of Germany, to grant a bonus to insured persons who had vehicles registered under customs plates mainly concerned nationals of Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany or persons who did not reside in the Federal Republic of Germany.

20 It must be observed in that respect that the Court has consistently held that Article 34 applies only to national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a special advantage for national products or for the domestic market of the State concerned.

21 National rules such as those in question in the main proceedings do not fall within that category; they merely authorize insurance companies to take into account in their tariff conditions particular circumstances in which vehicles are used which increase or diminish the insurance risk, such as, for example, the use of vehicles registered under customs plates.

22 Quite apart from the fact that the enactment of such rules in a Member State in no way prohibits insurers in that State from granting a bonus in respect of vehicles registered under customs plates, there is nothing to suggest that a tariff condition such as that at issue in the main proceedings, covered by such rules, gives any advantage whatever to national products or to the domestic market of the Member State concerned.

23 The answer to the question put by the national court must therefore be that the refusal of a no-claims bonus to insured persons resident in another Member State who own a vehicle registered under customs plates is not

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1984 — CASE 251/83

contrary to any provision of Community law, in so far as that refusal is based solely on objective actuarial criteria applied in a non-discriminatory manner.

Kakouris Everling Galmot

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 December 1984.

J. A. Pompe C. Kakouris Deputy Registrar President of the Third Chamber