Case C‑413/15

Elaine Farrell

v

Alan Whitty and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland))

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver — Compulsory insurance — Direct effect — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 1(4) — Organisation responsible for paying compensation for damage to property or personal injury caused by an unidentified or uninsured vehicle — Whether a directive can be relied on against a State — Conditions governing whether a private law body can be deemed to be an emanation of the State and whether provisions of a directive capable of having direct effect can be relied upon against it)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 10 October 2017

1. Acts of the institutions—Directives—Direct effect—Body responsible, subject to the control of the State, for performing a task in the public interest or having special powers—Whether those conditions are alternative

   (Art. 288 TFEU)

2. Approximation of laws—Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles—Directive 84/5—Compensation paid for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle—Creation by a Member State of a private law body responsible for paying such compensation—Whether the provisions of a directive having direct effect can be relied on by individuals against such a body

   (Art. 288 TFEU; Council Directive 84/5, as amended by Directive 90/232, Art. 1(4))

1.  Article 288 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not, in itself, preclude the possibility that provisions of a directive that are capable of having direct effect may be relied on against a body that does not display all the characteristics listed in paragraph 20 of the judgment of 12 July 1990, Foster and Others (C‑188/89, EU:C:1990:313), read together with those mentioned in paragraph 18 of that judgment.

   Paragraph 20 of that judgment must be read in the light of paragraph 18 of the same judgment, where the Court stated that such provisions can be relied on by an individual against organisations or bodies which are subject to the authority or control of the State or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals. Accordingly, as stated, in essence, by the Advocate General in points 53 and 77 of her Opinion, the conditions that the organisation concerned must, respectively, be subject to the authority or control of the State, and must possess special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals cannot be conjunctive (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 December 1997, Kampelmann and Others, C‑253/96 to C‑258/96, EU:C:1997:585, paragraphs 46 and 47, and of 7 September 2006, Vassallo, C‑180/04, EU:C:2006:518, paragraph 26).

   (see paras 27-29, operative part 1)

2.  Provisions of a directive that are capable of having direct effect may be relied on against a private law body on which a Member State has conferred a task in the public interest, such as that inherent in the obligation imposed on the Member States by Article 1(4) of 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, as amended by the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990, and which, for that purpose, possesses, by statute, special powers, such as the power to oblige insurers carrying on motor vehicle insurance in the territory of the Member State concerned to be members of it and to fund it.

   (see para. 42, operative part 2)