JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1984 — CASE 116/83 BUREAU BELGE DES ASSUREURS AUTOMOBILES / FANTOZZI

In Case 116/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Mons (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: K. Bahlmann, President of Chamber, P. Pescatore and O. Due, Judges, Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: D. Louterman, Administrator

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

II — Summary of written observations submitted to the Court

III — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Summary of written observations submitted to the Court

III —. Oral procedure

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 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 Populaires 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 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:

9. Before considering the problem raised by that question, it should be noted that Council Directive 72/166 established a system whose essential characteristics, clearly set out in the last three recitals in the preamble, may be summarized as follows:

10. Article 2 (2) of the directive provides that:

11. 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 accordance with the provisions of its national law, whether or not the driver was actually insured.

14. 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.

16. The costs incurred 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 observations 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, THE COURT (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: