Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 220/83

I — Facts and written procedure

1. The coinsurance sector, that is to say, insurance in which several insurers take part, has been the subject of the following harmonizing directives:

2. In order to transpose Directive 78/473 into its internal law, the French Republic adopted Law No 81-5 of 7 January 1981 on insurance contracts and capitalization operations (Journal officiel de L République française, 8. 1. 1981, p. 194) and Decree No 81-443 of 7 May 1981 amending the Insurance Code in regard to Community coinsurance (Journal officiel de L République française, 9. 5. 1981, p. 1303).

3. Since it considered that the French legislation was contrary to the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services, the Commission, on 7 January 1982, sent a letter to the French Government under the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, calling upon it to submit its observations.

4. The application was received at the Court Registry on 3 October 1983.

II — Conclusions of the parties

The Commission, supported by the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, claims that the Court should:

The French Republic, supported by the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland, contends that the Court should:

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Admissibility

2. The substance of the case

IV — Replies to questions put by the Court

In addition to the facts already referred to above, it emerges from the Commission's replies to the questions put to it by the Court that the repon on the development of Community coinsurance provided for in Article 9 of Directive 78/473 has not yet been submitted to the Council.

The Commission also indicated that it did not have sufficient statistical information to be able to advise the Court of developments in the volume of Community coinsurance.

V — Oral procedure

The Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Gilmour and J. Delmoly, assisted by E. Steindorff and A. Philip, the French Government, represented by R. De Gouttes, the United Kingdom, represented by N. Phillips and P. Lasok, the Netherlands Government, represented by D.J. Keur, the Italian Government, represented by O. Fiumara, the Belgian Government, represented by R. Hoebaer, G. Vernaillen and Ph. Beaufay, and Ireland, represented by J. D. Cooke and J. O'Reilly, presented oral argument and answered questions put to them by the Court at the hearing on 6 and 7 November 1985.

The Commission stated at the hearing that the second head of claim was not directed against the unilateral fixing of the level of the thresholds but against the very existence of such thresholds. It was based on the premise that any requirement of authorization and establishment in the matter of freedom to provide services in the insurance sector was contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty and that it was not open to the Member States, when transposing the directive into their national law, to limit the exemption from the obligations of establishment and authorization to coinsurers participating in insurance business which, according to the view taken by each State, came within the scope of the directive.

The Advocate General delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 20 March 1986.

1 Language of the Case: French.