Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009CN0026

Case C-26/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 19 January 2009 — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

OJ C 90, 18.4.2009, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.4.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 19 January 2009 — The Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

(Case C-26/09)

2009/C 90/13

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Defendants: Helphire (UK) Limited, Angel Assistance Limited

Questions referred

Question 1

(a)

Where the national law of the member state provides that the charges incurred by the victim of a motor accident in subsequently hiring a replacement vehicle are recoverable from the person responsible, does Article 1.4 of the Directive (1) permit MIB to exclude any liability for such charges where compensation will ultimately be paid over to the insurer who issued a post-accident policy covering the hire charges in the event of non-recovery from the person responsible?

(b)

If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative, is it permissible for the compensation by MIB to be limited to the premium, if any, payable to the insurers who have paid the hire charges?

Question 2

If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:

Is the national court required to interpret the Uninsured Drivers Agreement so as to give effect to the Directive in accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Justice in Case C-106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion [1990] ECR I-4135? In other words, does ‘the whole body of rules of national law’ to which the third indent of paragraph 120 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kruz [2004] ECR I-8835 refers, include an agreement such as the Uninsured Drivers Agreement?

Question 3

If the answer to Question 1(a) is the negative:

Does Article 1.4 of the Directive have direct effect?

Question 4

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:

(a)

For the purposes of determining whether a body such as MIB is one against which the provisions of a directive which are capable of having direct effect may be relied upon:

(i)

Are the criteria identified by the Court of Justice in Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR 1-3313 the criteria by reference to which such a determination should be made?

(ii)

If the determination should be made by reference to some (but not all) of such criteria and/or to additional criteria, by reference to which criteria should the determination be made?

(b)

Is it solely for the domestic court to determine whether a body fulfils the relevant criteria?

(c)

Does a body with the characteristics of MIB fulfil the criteria such that the provisions of a directive which have direct effect may be relied upon against it?

(1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles OJ L 8, p. 17

Top