It is virtually impossible to calculate precisely the levels of compensation in each Member State because of the number of parameters that need to be taken into account, and because even when each of these is considered, data sets for some of the parameters are sometimes inaccessible. Thus, any presentation of compensation levels should be interpreted with great care and at most used to identify general trends or patterns.
3.3.1 General differences in compensation practices
The Team has prepared the graph below based on a number of sources including personal injury lawyers, insurance and reinsurance evaluations and country studies organized by specialized organizations over the last seven years.
40L. Reiss, Le juge et le préjudice. Etude comparée des droits français et anglais, préf. P.
Delebecque, PUAM 2003, n° 358, p. 277.
41Judgment of the Court of Appeal of the 27th February 2004 in “Annunziata sive Nancy Caruana vs.
Odette Camilleri”.
42Report on the 6thTraffic Law Days in Trier, Prof. Dr. Christian Huber, Trier 2005, page 7 43See national report for Slovakia page 10
The result is useful only in that it shows differences so great between countries that even regressive corrections would not attenuate them substantially as shown in the graphs below.
Graph 3
Sources: various compiled
We can conclude from the graph above, as well as from the Country Reports, interviews and surveys that levels of compensation differ greatly between Member States44.
Each study and survey conducted brings up different levels of compensation for each country. The case study (“Case Study” or “Tartarin and Farandelle Case Study”) undertaken in this Study confirms important differences between Member States.
The differential graph below shows the differing compensation levels between Member States relative to each other withFrance used as a basis or pivotal point.
44This is confirmed in studies such as Personnel Injury Awards in EU and EFTA Countries, Edited by
Graph 4
Source: Tartarin and Farandelle case study completed by the country experts under this Study
3.3.2 Some countries provide higher levels of compensation depending on the type of loss
It is important to note that based on a specific case one cannot conclude that as a general rule one particular country awards higher levels of compensation than another. The above case study involved a death, and injuries to the surviving spouse. The graph above indentifies the estimation for total compensation to be awarded under the case study. But if one looks only at compensation levels for « death » excluding injuries to the surviving spouse, the differential results will vary. This is shown in the graph below which provides a differential result taking the « death » of Tartarin and damage to the car only into consideration.
Graph 5
Source: Tartarin and Farandelle case study completed by the country experts under this Study (counting only the consequences of Tartarin’s death).
This result is confirmed by other studies. In a study organized by Patrick Le Roy and Sascha Krahe of GeneralCologne Re, titled A European Compensation of Bodily Injury Claims, it is clear that some countries will award more compensation for “death” whilst others will have higher levels of compensation for tetraplegia or leg amputation45.
As a result, not only are compensation levels different generally, but it cannot be said that any one country compensates at a higher level than another.
45 Patrick Le Roy and Sascha Krahe, A European Comparison of Bodily Injury Claims, The Bases and
practice of the Law of Damages for Bodily Injury in the light of the Liability Implications for Motor Third Party Liability Insurers: A comparison of Six European Countries, GeneralCologne Re, N 44, 2001. See also Personnel Injury Awards in EU and EFTA Countries, Edited by David McIntosh and Marjorie Holmes, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
3.3.3 Predictability and cross-border specificity
Many experts interviewed stated that it is difficult to evaluate compensation levels as a specific award will be granted for each set of circumstances.
It is also important to state that in determining compensation levels the impact of welfare systems should be disregarded as these can distort the results. In many studies, Sweden and Finland appear to show some of the lowest levels of compensation. This is because such studies do not take into account cross-border factors. The Case Study conducted herein integrates the cross-border reference fully. The result is that Sweden and Finland award the highest levels of compensation according to this present study. The role and function of the welfare system is disassociated in the Case Study as they cannot, in the given circumstances, exercise their role and function. The injured party goes back to his or her own country so that the compensation has to be evaluated outside the normal sphere of “welfare” compensation.
3.3.4 Increases in compensation levels over time
Interviews and research conducted under the Study show that levels of compensation have generally increased over time. Analysis of the speed of increase in compensation level per country would shed light on whether current differences are long-term, or whether there will be a convergence in compensation levels and practices in the future. Interviews confirm that losses that were not recognized in some countries a few years ago are now considered to be subject to compensation, and that there is a certain level of convergence in the developing recognition of losses.