Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61976J0090

	Název: Title:		ECJ Judgment of 9 June 1977 Case 90/76 S.r.l. Ufficio Henry van Ameyde v S.r.l. Ufficio centrale italiano di assistenza assicurativa automobilisti in circolazione internazionale (UCI) Preliminary ruling [1977] ECR 1091 ”Van Ameyde”

	Publikace: Publication:

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		Case 36/74 Walrave v UCI [1974] ECR 1405


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
In this preliminary ruling the Court addressed questions on the interpretation of certain Community acts concerning the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and of the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, the free movement provisions and the competition rules.
The questions were raised in proceedings between a loss-adjusters’ undertaking and UCI, the Italian national bureau to which most of the insurers against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles operating in Italy were affiliated and which was responsible, under the green card system, for compensation with respect to accidents caused by motor vehicles insured by foreign insurance companies. The undertaking requested the national court to declare illegal the claim made by UCI that it could entrust the investigation and settlement of claims in respect of accidents caused by motor vehicles insured abroad only to those companies which were affiliated to it and, consequently, to declare illegal any action taken by the UCI in relation to third persons which restricted the free activities of the plaintiff and sent its customers elsewhere.

Názor soudu a komentář:
In paragraph 15, the Court made clear that Community legislation designed ”to abolish checks on the green card at frontiers between Member States cannot be regarded as authorizing the existence of national provisions or agreements between national insurers’ bureaux or their members which are incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty relating to competition, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services. A fortiori they may not authorize any agreements or practices agreed between national insurers’ bureaux or any conduct by them which is incompatible with the said provisions of the Treaty.” The principle here is that the Community legislator cannot derogate nor allow enterprises or States to derogate from the mandatory provisions of the Treaty.
As regards national provisions and agreements between bureaux, the Court established the compatibility with the competition rules of a ”a national provision or an agreement between national bureaux established in the context of the green card system which declares that the national bureau bears sole responsibility for the settlement of claims for damage caused in the territory of that Member State by vehicles insured by foreign insurance companies but which still allows the national bureau or its Members to rely on undertakings whose business consists solely in the settlement of accident claims on behalf of insurers in the sense of the handling and investigation of claims” (par. 22).
As to the actual decisions and concerted practices of the national bureau or its members, the Court found that they possibly infringed the competition rules of the Treaty if the national court found that they had ”the object or effect of excluding undertakings whose business consists solely in the settlement […] of accident claims on behalf of insurers.” If the national bureau was in a dominant position, such practices would also have infringed the prohibition contained in Articles 86 (ex 90) of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 82 (ex 86).
The Court then went on to analyse the facts from the point of view of the provisions on free movement and the prohibition of non-discrimination. It established that in ”the respective spheres of the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services Articles 52 and 59 guarantee the application of the principle laid down by Article 7. It follows therefore that if rules are compatible with Articles 52 and 59 they are also compatible with Article 7” (par. 27).
The Court extended the jurisprudence established in
Walrave
to the effect that the free movement provisions are not only applicable to State measures, but also to ”rules of whatever kind which seek to govern collectively the carrying on of the business in question. In that case it is not relevant whether the discrimination originated in measures of a public authority or, on the contrary, in measures attributable to the national insurers’ bureaux” (par. 28), which was a private body.
Nonetheless, the Court found that ”the fact of reserving to insurance companies or to such a national bureau established in the territory where the accident was caused by a vehicle normally based in another Member State the decision concerning the compensation of the victim does not constitute discrimination within the meaning of Articles 52 and 59 if the exclusion of other categories of undertakings is not based on the
criterion of nationality” (par. 29). Since the measures were not discriminatory and at the time the Court found only discriminatory national measures to be in breach of the freedom of establishment, they were declared to be legal under the free movement provisions.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):