61969J0009

++++

EAEC - NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES - DRIVING OF A PRIVATE CAR BY A SERVANT WHILE ON DUTY - ACTIVITY IN PRINCIPLE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF SUCH SERVANT .

( EAEC TREATY, ARTICLE 188 )

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF A SERVANT OF THE COMMUNITY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 OF THE EAEC TREATY, DOES NOT IN PRINCIPLE INCLUDE THE USE OF HIS PRIVATE CAR WHILE ON DUTY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE OR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCH OVERRIDING IMPORTANCE THAT WITHOUT THE SERVANT'S USING PRIVATE MEANS OF TRANSPORT THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO CARRY OUT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO IT .

IN CASE 9/69

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 150 OF THE EAEC TREATY BY THE BELGIAN COUR DE CASSATION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

( 1 ) CLAUDE SAYAG, THE ACCUSED,

( 2 ) SOCIETE ANONYME ZURICH, INTERVENER,

AND

( 1 ) JEAN-PIERRE LEDUC,

( 2 ) DENISE LEDUC ( NEE THONNON ), HIS WIFE,

( 3 ) SOCIETE ANONYME LA CONCORDE, PARTIES TO THE CIVIL ACTION,

ON THE INTERPRETATION TO BE PLACED ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188, AND ON ARTICLE 151 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,

1 BY JUDGMENT OF 17 FEBRUARY 1969, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 20 FEBRUARY 1969, THE BELGIAN COUR DE CASSATION HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 150 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EAEC, QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 AND ARTICLE 151 OF THE TREATY .

2 THIS JUDGMENT REQUESTS THE COURT TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF THE TERM " IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES " AND, WHERE AN ACT GIVING RISE TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY A SERVANT WHO WAS NOT ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO RULE WHETHER SUCH AN ACT RENDERS THE SERVANT PERSONALLY LIABLE OR WHETHER HIS LIABILITY IS ABSORBED BY THAT OF THE COMMUNITY AND, IF NECESSARY, TO SPECIFY THE LEGAL SYSTEM APPLICABLE TO THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE SERVANT AND HIS INSURER, AND TO RULE WHETHER THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUCH ACTION IS SOLELY THAT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 151 OF THE TREATY .

3 IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE QUESTIONS REFERRED CONCERN THE CASE OF AN OFFICIAL OF THE EAEC WHO, BEING IN POSSESSION OF A TRAVEL ORDER, CAUSED AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING HIS PRIVATE CAR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A MISSION .

4 THIS GIVES RISE TO THE FIRST QUESTION WHETHER, WHILE NOT ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ANNEXED TO THE EAEC TREATY, SUCH AN OFFICIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 OF THE TREATY .

5 AS REGARDS NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY, THE TREATY SUBJECTS THE COMMUNITY TO RULES FORMING PART OF THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM AND WHICH IMPOSE ON IT A UNIFORM SYSTEM IN COMPENSATING FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY ITS INSTITUTIONS AND BY ITS SERVANTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES .

6 THE TREATY ENSURES THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THIS SYSTEM AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY BY GIVING THE COURT OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION IN DISPUTES IN THIS MATTER .

7 BY REFERRING AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INSTITUTIONS AND TO THAT CAUSED BY THE SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY, ARTICLE 188 INDICATES THAT THE COMMUNITY IS ONLY LIABLE FOR THOSE ACTS OF ITS SERVANTS WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF AN INTERNAL AND DIRECT RELATIONSHIP, ARE THE NECESSARY EXTENSION OF THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO THE INSTITUTIONS .

8 IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THIS LEGAL SYSTEM, IT WOULD NOT THEREFORE BE LAWFUL TO EXTEND IT TO CATEGORIES OF ACTS OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO ABOVE .

9 A SERVANT'S USE OF HIS PRIVATE CAR FOR TRANSPORT DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS SET OUT ABOVE .

10 A REFERENCE TO A SERVANT'S PRIVATE CAR IN A TRAVEL ORDER DOES NOT BRING THE DRIVING OF SUCH CAR WITHIN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, BUT IS BASICALLY INTENDED TO ENABLE ANY NECESSARY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THE USE OF THIS MEANS OF TRANSPORT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN FOR THIS PURPOSE .

11 ONLY IN THE CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE OR IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCH OVERRIDING IMPORTANCE THAT WITHOUT THE SERVANT'S USING PRIVATE MEANS OF TRANSPORT THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO CARRY OUT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO IT, COULD SUCH USE BE CONSIDERED TO FORM PART OF THE SERVANT'S PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 OF THE TREATY .

12 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE DRIVING OF A PRIVATE CAR BY A SERVANT CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE CONSTITUTE THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 OF THE EAEC TREATY .

13 IT IS, THEREFORE, UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE .

14 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

15 AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE BELGIAN COUR DE CASSATION, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT;

THE COURT

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE BELGIAN COUR DE CASSATION, BY JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT DATED 17 FEBRUARY 1969, HEREBY RULES :

THE PHRASE " THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES " IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 188 OF THE EAEC TREATY, DOES NOT, IN PRINCIPLE, INCLUDE THE USE BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY OF THEIR PRIVATE CARS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT .