WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The United Kingdom and the transposition of the Community directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
C 225 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 When the framework regulation on the Structural Funds was adopted, the Commission was supposed to have committed itself to taking into account the particular circumstances of individual Member States when making an overall examination of the eligible zones. Can the Commission answer the following questions: 1. What are the reasons that have led to this drastic decision, for which there is not even any provision in the above-mentioned regulation? 2. Does the Commission not consider that it has failed to take sufficient account of possible opportu- nities for derogation connected with Italyís particular circumstances? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent to the Commission by the Italian authorities 1. on 1 October 1999 was considered not to be acceptable because it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). This paragraph stipulates that in each Member State the areas meeting the Communityí criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance. However, the areas put forward by the Italian authorities in compliance with these criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i. e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population). 2. The Commission considers that the Regulation, which was adopted by all the Member States and received the assent of the European Parliament, provides considerable scope for accommodating the specific circumstances of Italy and that it is not necessary to resort to derogations from the regulatory framework. For example, the Italian authorities are not obliged to submit a proposal for all of the areas meeting the Community criteria (the population of which is 5 021 900). All they are required to submit is a list of areas satisfying these criteria in which the total population is at least 3 701 000. They are also permitted to calculate 50 % of the eligible population according to ánationalí criteria laid down in Article 4(7) to (9) of the Regulation. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/99 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: The United Kingdom and the transposition of the Community directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles In the United Kingdom at present, the Road Traffic Act 1991 prescribes a sentence of between five and ten yearsí imprisonment in cases concerning careless and/or reckless driving causing death, while the level of civil compensation laid down is insignificant and offensive to the feelings of the family, equating as it does a human life with the cost of a small car. The European Union has already legislated on this matter to bring about the approximation of the Member Statesí laws (Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 and Directive 84/5/EEC (2)) and Directive 90/232/ EEC (3) of 14 May 1990 specifically states that ámotor vehicle accident victims should be guaranteed comparable treatment irrespective of where in the Community accidents occurí. The deadline for transposition of this directive was 31 December 1992 and any extensions are exclusively limited to the Member States whose economies show differences in developmentí and, therefore, do not apply to the United Kingdom. 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/55 It is also well known that there are significant variations between the Member States regarding the amounts paid as compensation for personal injury. The Commission: 1. Can it investigate whether the above-mentioned directive has been transposed into national law and applied correctly, or whether in this case a contravention has occurred? 2. Does it not think it would be advisable to adopt a legislative proposal designed to harmonise the levels of compensation for personal injury resulting from road accidents? (1) OJ L 103, 2. 5. 1972, p. 1. (2) OJ L 8, 11. 1. 1984, p. 17. (3) OJ L 129, 19. 5. 1990, p. 33. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (21 December 1999) The Commission is aware of the existing differences in the level of civil compensation for personal damages as a result of motor accidents throughout the Community. Such differences not only exist between the Member States but often within a Member State, depending on the court which is competent to decide an individual case. This situation is not a consequence of the lack of implementation or of the inappropriate application of the Community insurance directives but of the coexistence in the Community of different national legislation on civil liability which is not harmonised. Furthermore in most Member States national legislation, which provides for minimum compensation amounts for compulsory motor insurance, does not specify the compensation for the different categories of personal material and non- material damages. These compensations are decided by the courts for each individual case. The first, the second and the third motor insurance directives (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability; 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; third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), mentioned by the Honourable Member have been implemented into national legislation by all Member States. These directives not only deal with the minimum compensation amounts for compulsory insurance but with other important elements for consumers such as the coverage of all the occupants of the car, limitations on exclusion clauses in the policy and setting up a compensation body or guarantee fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured or unidentified vehicles. The application of these directives seems to be satisfactory in general terms, although, where a case of inappropriate implementation or application has been detected, the Commission has not hesitated to contact the Member State in question or, when necessary, open the relevant infringement proceedings. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that a fourth motor insurance directive (common position (EC) No 24/1999 of 21 May 1999 adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the Community, with a view to adopting a Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Directives 73/239/ EEC and 88/357/EEC (1)) in order to facilitate the insurance compensation for damage to victims having an accident in a Member State other than the Member State where they are resident was proposed by the Commission and is now being discussed in the second reading by the Parliament. Furthermore, the Commission carried out in 1999 a survey on the modernisation of the motor insurance directives involving all interested parties and is setting up a working group on this matter with the participation of Member States authorities. (1) OJ C 232, 13. 8. 1999