James Wood v Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62007CC0164
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2008:135
• Date: 28 February 2008
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: C-164/07

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

KOKOTT

delivered on 28 February 2008 ¹(1)

Case C‑164/07

James Wood

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nantes (France))

(Discrimination on grounds of nationality – The first paragraph of Article 12 EC – Citizenship of the Union – Compensation for victims of crimes committed abroad – National provisions limiting the award of such victim compensation to a State’s own nationals)

I – Introduction

1. The present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns questions of discrimination on grounds of nationality in the context of the award of State compensation to victims of crime. The Court of Justice addressed a similar subject in Cowan. (2)

2. However, unlike Cowan, the present case does not concern compensation for victims of crimes committed in the territory of the Member State concerned. Rather, in this case, the Court of Justice is asked to assess the compatibility with the requirements of Community law of a national provision that also provides for compensation for victims of crimes committed abroad, but only grants such compensation to nationals of that Member State.

II – Legal framework

A – Community law

3. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC provides:

‘Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.’

4. Article 17 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (3) (‘Directive 2004/80’) is worded as follows:

‘More favourable provisions

This Directive shall not prevent Member States, in so far as such provisions are compatible with this Directive, from:

(a) introducing or maintaining more favourable provisions for the benefit of victims of crime or any other persons affected by crime;

(b) introducing or retaining provisions for the purpose of compensating victims of crime committed outside their territory, or any other person affected by such a crime, subject to any conditions that Member States may specify for that purpose.’

B – National law

5. Article 706-3 of the French Code de procédure pénale (Code of Criminal Procedure) provides:

‘Any person who has suffered harm caused by intentional or unintentional acts which constitute the actus reus of an offence may obtain full compensation for the damage deriving from offences against the person where the following cumulative conditions are met:

1. …

2. …

3. The person injured is a French national; or if this is not the case, the acts were committed on the national territory and the person injured is:

– either a citizen of one of the Member States of the European Economic Community,

– or, subject to the provisions of international treaties and agreements, lawfully resident in France at the time of the offence or of the application.

…’

III – Facts and main proceedings

6. James Wood is a British national who has lived in France for more than 20 years. He and his partner, a French national, had three children together, who also have French nationality.

7. In 2004, one of the children, their daughter Helena Wood, was killed in a car accident in Australia, where she was staying in order to receive professional training.

8. The Wood family brought a claim before the Compensation Board for Victims of Crime, Nantes (Commission nantaise d’indemnisation des victimes d’infractions) (‘the Compensation Board’), seeking compensation for the material and non-pecuniary losses they suffered as a result of Helena Wood’s death.

9. The mother and the siblings were awarded a right to compensation in an amount agreed with the relevant Guarantee Fund (Fonds de garantie).

10. However, the Guarantee Fund refused to pay compensation to the dead girl’s father, on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements under Article 706-3 of the Code de procédure pénale. In accordance with that provision, only French nationals have a right to compensation if the event giving rise to the harm was committed outside French territory. Given that Mr Wood, unlike the other family members, does not have French nationality, he does not have a right to compensation. He would only have a right to compensation if the accident involving his daughter had occurred in France.

11. On 11 January 2007, Mr Wood brought an action against the Guarantee Fund before the Compensation Board of the Tribunal de grande instance de Nantes (Regional Court, Nantes). He based his claim on the overriding provisions of Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 12 EC), which prohibit all discrimination on grounds of nationality.

12. According to Mr Wood, the discrimination consists in the fact that, even though he has lived, worked and paid taxes in France for more than 20 years, he was not awarded the same compensation for victims of crime as his partner and his children, who are French nationals, on the sole ground that he does not have French nationality.

IV – The reference for a preliminary ruling and the procedure before the Court

13. By decision of 16 March 2007, the Compensation Board of the Tribunal de grande instance de Nantes stayed proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘In the light of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, set out in Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome, are the provisions of Article 706-3 of the French Code de procédure pénale compatible or not with Community law in that a citizen of the European Community, residing in France, the father of a child having French nationality who died outside [French] territory, does not have a right to compensation paid by the Fonds de garantie on the sole ground of his nationality?’

14. In the proceedings before the Court of Justice, James Wood and the Guarantee Fund submitted written and oral observations, as did the French Government and the Commission. In addition, the Italian and the Portuguese Government submitted written observations to the Court of Justice.

V – Analysis

A – Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling

15. Before I examine the question referred for a preliminary ruling, I have briefly to address two issues relating to the admissibility of the question.

1. Interpretation of the question

16. The question refers to Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. However, the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality now appears, in identical terms, in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC). In addition, the first paragraph of Article 12 EC is applicable ratione temporis to the present case. Therefore, below, reference will be made to the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.

17. In the light of the wording of the question, it should moreover be noted, that, in accordance with consistent case-law, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law. However, it does have jurisdiction to supply the national court with a ruling on the...