CELEX: 62019CJ0383
Reference for a preliminary ruling
Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles
Directive 2009/103/EC
Article 3, first paragraph
Obligation to take out a contract of insurance
Scope
Local government authority which has acquired a vehicle by judicial means
Registered vehicle which is on private land and intended to be destroyed

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (
OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11
).
The request has been made in proceedings between the Powiat Ostrowski (District of Ostrów, Poland) (‘the district’) and the Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny (Insurance Guarantee Fund, Poland) (‘the guarantee fund’) concerning the possible obligation for the district to conclude a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle for a vehicle which the district has acquired by judicial means and which it intends to have destroyed.
Legal context
European Union law
Recitals 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/103 state:
‘(1)
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 [(OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360)], 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 [(
OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17
)], Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles [(
OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33
)] and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (Fourth motor insurance Directive) [(
OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65
)] have been substantially amended several times … . In the interests of clarity and rationality those four Directives should be codified, as well as Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives [72/166], [84/5], 88/357/EEC and [90/232] and Directive [2000/26] relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles [(
OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14
)].
(2)
Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (motor insurance) is of special importance for European citizens, whether they are policyholders or victims of an accident. It is also a major concern for insurance undertakings as it constitutes an important part of non-life insurance business in the Community. Motor insurance also has an impact on the free movement of persons and vehicles. …’
Article 1 of Directive 2009/103 sets out the following definitions:
‘For the purposes of this Directive:
(1)
“vehicle” means any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled;
…
(4)
“territory in which the vehicle is normally based” means:
(a)
the territory of the State of which the vehicle bears a registration plate, irrespective of whether the plate is permanent or temporary;
…’
Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Compulsory insurance of vehicles’, provides, in its first paragraph:
‘Each Member State shall, subject to Article 5, take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance.’
Under Article 4 of that directive, concerning ‘Checks on insurance’:
‘Member States shall refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of another Member State and in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of a third country entering their territory from the territory of another Member State. However, they may carry out non-systematic checks on insurance provided that those checks are not discriminatory and are carried out as part of a control which is not aimed exclusively at insurance verification.’
Article 5 of Directive 2009/103, entitled ‘Derogation from the obligation in respect of compulsory insurance of vehicles’, provides:
‘1.   A Member State may derogate from Article 3 in respect of certain natural or legal persons, public or private; a list of such persons shall be drawn up by the State concerned and communicated to the other Member States and to the [European] Commission.
A Member State so derogating shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that compensation is paid in respect of any loss or injury caused in its territory and in the territory of other Member States by vehicles belonging to such persons.
…
2.   A Member State may derogate from Article 3 in respect of certain types of vehicle or certain vehicles having a special plate; the list of such types or of such vehicles shall be drawn up by the State concerned and communicated to the other Member States and to the Commission.
Any Member State so derogating shall ensure that vehicles referred to in the first subparagraph are treated in the same way as vehicles for which the insurance obligation provided for in Article 3 has not been satisfied.
…’
Article 10 of that directive, entitled ‘Body responsible for compensation’ states, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof:
‘Each Member State shall set up or authorise a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the insurance obligation for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which the insurance obligation provided for in Article 3 has not been satisfied.’
Polish law
Article 10(2) of the Ustawa o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyjnych (Law on Compulsory Insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau), of 22 May 2003, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (Dz. U. of 2018, item 473) (‘the Law on Compulsory Insurance’), provides:
‘An action may be brought before an ordinary court seeking to establish the compliance with or absence of the insurance obligation.’
Article 23(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance provides that the keeper of a motor vehicle is required to conclude a compulsory civil liability insurance contract for motor vehicle keepers in respect of loss or injury resulting from the use of the motor vehicle in his or her possession.
Article 31(3) of that law provides:
‘In the event of the passing or transfer of the ownership of a registered motor vehicle, the keeper of which did not conclude a civil liability insurance contract for motor vehicle keepers despite an obligation [under the present Law] to do so, the keeper to whom the ownership of the vehicle passed or was transferred shall be required to conclude a civil liability insurance contract for motor vehicle keepers on the date of the passing or transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle, and by the time that the motor vehicle is put into use at the latest. …’
Article 33 of that law states that compulsory insurance against civil liability for the keepers of a motor vehicle ends, inter alia, when the motor vehicle is deregistered or by the handing over of an incomplete vehicle to a vehicle disassembly or recycling undertaking, on the basis of a certificate attesting receipt of an incomplete vehicle covered by the ustawa o recycklingu pojazdów wycofanych z eksploatacji (Law on the recycling of vehicles withdrawn from use) of 20 January 2005 (Dz. U. of 2018, item 578), or on the basis of an equivalent document issued in another Member State.
In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance, the guarantee fund is the body empowered to monitor compliance, by keepers of motor vehicles, with the obligation to conclude a civil liability insurance contract. Article 88(7) thereof requires any person who fails to take out such a contract to pay a fine to the guarantee fund.
Article 130a of the Ustawa Prawo o ruchu drogowym (Law on Road Traffic), of 20 June 1997, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (Dz. U. of 2018, item 1990), lays down the conditions for the removal of a vehicle at its owner’s expense. The first subparagraph of paragraph 10 of that article provides:
‘As regards a vehicle that has been removed from the road, in the circumstances set out in paragraph 1 or 2 [in particular in the event of a failure to comply with parking rules or when the technical state of the vehicle endangers road safety], the
starosta
(chief district official) shall apply to the court for a decision on the forfeiture of the vehicle to the powiat (district), if the owner or an authorised person, having been properly notified, has not collected the vehicle within 3 months of the date of its removal. The notification shall contain information concerning the consequences of failure to collect a vehicle.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
By decision of 16 January 2018, the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (District Court, Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland) ordered the forfeiture to the district of a vehicle registered in Poland, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 130a(10) of the Law on Road Traffic. That decision became final on 7 February 2018, the date on which the district became owner of the vehicle.
The district submitted an application for the above decision to be served together with an order of enforceability and for the enforcement clause to be affixed. Those requests were granted on 20 April 2018. Since that date fell on a Friday, the district insured the vehicle from the next day the administration was open, Monday 23 April 2018.
It is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that the vehicle at issue was examined by an expert on 2 May 2018. That assessment established that it was impossible to start the vehicle, that it was in a poor technical state, that it constituted scrap metal and had a market value of 400 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 89).
Given that technical state, the district decided to have the vehicle destroyed. The vehicle was thus delivered, for the purposes of its destruction, to a disassembly facility, which issued a certificate concerning its disassembly. On the basis of that certificate, the vehicle was deregistered on 22 June 2018.
By letter of 10 July 2018, the guarantee fund informed the district that it had found that the vehicle had remained uninsured until and including 22 April 2018 and that the district would have to pay a fine of PLN 4200 (approximately EUR 933) for failing to fulfil its obligation to take out a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of that vehicle during the period from 7 February to 22 April 2018 (‘the period at issue’).
On 25 September 2018, the district brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (District Court, Ostrów Wielkopolski), the referring court, seeking a declaration that, during the period at issue, it was not obliged to insure the vehicle. In that regard, the district submits that, first, it was unable to take out an insurance contract before obtaining, on20 April 2018, a copy of the forfeiture order and, secondly, during that period, the vehicle was in a guarded car park and was not in a state in which it could be driven so that no loss or injury could be caused by its use.
The guarantee fund contends that that action should be dismissed, since the technical state of the vehicle is, in its view, irrelevant in the light of the obligation of keepers of motor vehicles to conclude a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of their use.
The referring court states that vehicles in respect of which a forfeiture order has been issued are subject to a technical examination by an expert and that a vehicle recognised as no longer fit for use is transferred, by a handover record, to a disassembly facility for the purpose of its destruction, the disassembly facility establishing a disassembly certificate which forms the basis for the deregistration of the vehicle.
It states that the insurance obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance applies irrespective of whether the vehicle concerned is capable of being driven or whether it is intended to be destroyed because of its technical state, which prevents it from being used as a means of transport, and that, similarly, the insurance obligation laid down in Article 31(3) of that law in the event of the passing or transfer of the right of ownership of a registered vehicle of which the initial keeper did not conclude such a contract despite his or her obligation to do so, as in the case before it, applies irrespective of whether the vehicle concerned can be used as a means of transport and even if the new owner intends to have that vehicle destroyed.
As regards the facts, it observes that, first, throughout the period at issue, the vehicle at issue was immobilised in a guarded car park and, in the light of its technical state, it was impossible to make any journey using it. Secondly, in accordance with the wishes of its owner, that vehicle was intended for destruction, and was indeed destroyed, its technical state having been defined as ‘scrap metal’.
In that context, the referring court raises the issue of the possibility of excluding the obligation to conclude a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles where the vehicle concerned is immobilised on private land, has become the property of a local government authority by virtue of a final decision of a court, is not capable of being driven and is to be destroyed as a result of its owner’s decision.
In that regard, and taking into account, in particular, the judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana (
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
), it wonders whether the fact that a vehicle is capable of being driven and used as a means of transport is a necessary factor for classification as a ‘vehicle’ within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103. In its view, by virtue of that judgment, there was no obligation for the district to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, given that, from the point of acquisition of the vehicle at issue, the district did not intend to put it into use and that, from that point until its destruction, that vehicle was neither in a state in which it could be driven nor intended to be driven and therefore it could not fulfil its function as a means of transport. However, under Article 31(3) of the Law on Compulsory Insurance, the district was required to take out such insurance in respect of the vehicle at issue.
In those circumstances, the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (District Court of Ostrów Wielkopolski) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Must Article 3 of Directive [2009/103] be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to situations in which a local government authority – a district – has acquired, on the basis of a court decision, title to a vehicle which is not capable of being driven, is on private property in the form of a guarded car park not on the public highway, and is to be destroyed in accordance with the wishes of its owner?
(2)
Or must it be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the local government authority, as the owner of the vehicle, is not obliged to take out insurance, without prejudice to the liability of the [guarantee] fund towards injured third parties?’
Consideration of the questions referred
Admissibility
The guarantee fund disputes the admissibility of the questions referred. In that regard, it submits that, in so far as they relate to the status of the entity which owns the vehicle and to the way in which the vehicle was acquired, they have no bearing on the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 and concern, in fact, the interpretation of national law and that, in so far as they relate to the technical state of the vehicle, its place of parking and the intention of its owner to have it destroyed the Court has already answered them, with the result that it is unnecessary to reply to them again.
In the first place it must be recalled that, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts provided for in Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (judgments of 15 January 2013, Križan and Others,
C‑416/10
,
EU:C:2013:8
, paragraph
and the case-law cited, and of 24 November 2020, Openbaar Ministerie(Forgery of documents),
C‑510/19
,
EU:C:2020:953
, paragraph
).
It follows that questions relating to EU law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgments of 15 January 2013, Križan and Others,
C‑416/10
,
EU:C:2013:8
, paragraph
and the case-law cited, and of 24 November 2020, Openbaar Ministerie(Forgery of documents),
C‑510/19
,
EU:C:2020:953
, paragraph
).
In the present case, the questions referred expressly concern the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, the referring court raising the issue, in essence, of the scope of the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as provided for in that article.
In addition, it is clear that the present case does not fall within any of the three situations set out in the case-law referred to in paragraph 30 above, since none of the arguments put forward by the guarantee fund is capable, moreover, of establishing that one of those situations is satisfied and thus of rebutting the presumption of relevance enjoyed by questions concerning EU law.
In the second place, those circumstances in no way prevent a national court from referring a question for a preliminary ruling to this Court, the answer to which, in the submission of one of the parties in the main proceedings, leaves no scope for any reasonable doubt. Thus, even if that were the case, that question does not thereby become inadmissible (judgments of 1 December 2011, Painer,
C‑145/10
,
EU:C:2011:798
, paragraphs
and
and the case-law cited, and of 9 July 2020, Vueling Airlines,
C‑86/19
,
EU:C:2020:538
, paragraph
).
Accordingly, it must be held that the questions referred are admissible.
Substance
It should be noted as a preliminary point, first, that by its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, about the scope of the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103. Directive 2009/103, as is apparent from recital 1 thereof, codified the earlier directives 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 the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, without amending their substance. The case-law relating to those earlier directives can therefore be applied to the interpretation of the equivalent provisions of Directive 2009/103.
Secondly, the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 provides that each Member State is, subject to Article 5 of that directive, to take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance.
However, although Article 5 of Directive 2009/103 provides that a Member State may, under the conditions specified in that article, derogate from Article 3 of that directive in respect of, according to Article 5(1), certain natural or legal persons, public or private, or, according to Article 5(2), certain types of vehicle or certain vehicles having a special plate, it appears that the Republic of Poland has not exercised that option in respect of vehicles acquired by local government authorities by virtue of a judicial decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings. Consequently, the fact that that vehicle was acquired by a local government authority by virtue of a judicial decision is, in the present case, irrelevant as regards the applicability of the first paragraph of Article 3 of the directive in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling.
In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its two questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 is to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is compulsory where the vehicle concerned is registered in a Member State, is on private land, is not capable of being driven as a result of its technical state and where, by the choice of its owner, it is to be destroyed.
As the Court has already held, the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, worded in very general terms, requires Member States to establish, in their domestic legal systems, a general obligation to insure vehicles (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
and the case-law cited).
Accordingly, each Member State must ensure, subject to the derogations provided for in Article 5 of that directive, that every vehicle normally based in its territory is covered by a contract concluded with an insurance company in order to cover, up to the limits established by EU law, civil liability arising as a result of the use of that vehicle (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
and the case-law cited).
In that regard, it should be recalled that the concept of ‘vehicle’ is defined in Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103 as ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled’.
As the Court has repeatedly held, that definition is unconnected with the use which is made or may be made of the vehicle in question (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
and the case-law cited).
The Court has also already held that such a definition is conducive to the concept of ‘vehicle’ being given an objective sense that is independent of the intention of the owner of the vehicle or of another person actually to use it (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
).
It also pointed out that the question of the scope of the obligation to take out insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must, for reasons of legal certainty, be determined in advance, that is, before any involvement of the vehicle concerned in an accident (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
).
The Court inferred from this that the fact that it held, in essence, in the judgments of 4 September 2014, Vnuk (
C‑162/13
,
EU:C:2014:2146
), of 28 November 2017, Rodrigues de Andrade (
C‑514/16
,
EU:C:2017:908
) and of 20 December 2017, Núñez Torreiro (
C‑334/16
,
EU:C:2017:1007
), that only situations of use of the insured vehicle which fall within the use of a vehicle as a means of transport and, therefore, fall within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 may give rise to the insurer being responsible, under a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of that vehicle, for the damage or injuries caused by the latter, does not in any way mean that the determination of whether there is an obligation to take out such insurance should be dependent on whether or not the vehicle at issue is actually being used as a means of transport at a given time (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
).
The Court concluded from the foregoing that a vehicle which is registered and therefore has not been officially withdrawn from use, and which is capable of being driven, corresponds to the concept of ‘vehicle’ within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103 and, consequently, does not cease to be subject to the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive on the sole ground that its owner no longer intends to drive it and immobilises it on private land (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
). Accordingly, the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is obligatory, under the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive, when the vehicle concerned is still registered in a Member State and is capable of being driven but is parked on private land, solely by the choice of the owner, who no longer intends to drive it (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
).
The same must apply, in principle, to a vehicle registered in a Member State which is on private land and which is to be destroyed in accordance with the choice of its owner, even where that vehicle is not, at a given time, capable of being driven because of its technical state.
In the first place, as has been recalled in paragraph 43 above, the concept of ‘vehicle’, within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103, is an objective concept. The technical state of a vehicle and, consequently, whether it is capable of being driven, may vary over time and whether it may be restored to such a state depends, at least to a large extent, on subjective factors such as, in particular, the intention of its owner or its keeper to carry out or have carried out the necessary repairs and the availability of the budget necessary for that purpose. Consequently, if the mere fact that a vehicle is not, at a given time, capable of being driven were sufficient to deprive it of its status as a vehicle, within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103, and were therefore sufficient to exempt it from the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive, the objective character of that concept of ‘vehicle’ would be called into question.
In that regard, it must be pointed out that, as the Advocate General observed in point 59 of his Opinion, it follows from the case-law referred to in paragraphs 44 and 45 above that the insurance obligation as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 is not linked to the use of the vehicle as a means of transport at a given time or to the question whether or not the vehicle concerned has caused damage.
It follows that, contrary to what is envisaged by the referring court, the mere fact that a registered vehicle is not, at a given time, capable of being driven on account of its technical state, even if that is the case as of the point at which the right of ownership is transferred, and is therefore not capable of potentially causing loss or injury falling within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, cannot exempt it from the insurance obligation laid down in that provision.
Similarly, since that concept of ‘vehicle’ is, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 43 of the present judgment, independent of the intention of its owner or of another person actually to use it, nor can the fact that that owner or another person intends to have that vehicle destroyed lead to the conclusion that that vehicle loses, by reason only of that intention, its status as a ‘vehicle’, within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103, and thus avoids that insurance obligation. To conclude otherwise would also be contrary the objective nature of that concept.
Furthermore, to render the classification as a ‘vehicle’, within the meaning of that provision, and, consequently, the scope of the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, dependent on such subjective factors would also undermine the predictability, stability and continuity of that obligation, compliance with which is, however, necessary in order to ensure legal certainty, as is apparent, in essence, from the case-law cited in paragraph 44 above.
In the second place, although Article 10(1) of Directive 2009/103 requires Member States to establish a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the insurance obligation laid down by EU law, for damage to property or personal injuries caused, inter alia, by a vehicle for which the insurance obligation provided for in Article 3 of that directive has not been satisfied, the payment of compensation by such a body was designed to be a measure of last resort, envisaged only for situations referred to in that provision, and cannot be regarded as the implementation of a guarantee scheme in respect of insurance against civil liability relating to the use of vehicles otherwise than in those situations (judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
and the case-law cited).
The scope of obligatory intervention of the compensation body referred to in Article 10(1) of Directive 2009/103 is, as regards the damage or injuries caused by an identified vehicle, coextensive with the scope of the general insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive, so that the obligatory intervention of that body in such a situation cannot extend to situations in which the vehicle involved in an accident was not covered by the insurance obligation (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
).
It follows that the possible intervention of the compensation body referred to in Article 10(1), which it is open to the Member States to provide for solely under national law in circumstances other than those set out in that provision, cannot be taken into account in order to determine the scope of the insurance obligation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103.
It also follows that, since the intervention of that body is provided for, under Directive 2009/103 and in respect of an identified vehicle, only in cases in which taking out the insurance referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 is compulsory, the interpretation adopted in paragraph 47 of this judgment must also be applied in order to ensure that the objective of protecting the victims of traffic accidents caused by motor vehicles is met, since that interpretation guarantees that those victims are, in any event, compensated either by the insurer, under a contract concluded for that purpose, or by the body referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2009/103 where the obligation to insure the vehicle involved in the accident has not been met or where that vehicle has not been identified. In that regard, it should be noted that that objective, pursued by the successive directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of such vehicles, has continuously been pursued and reinforced by the EU legislature and is reaffirmed again in recital 2 of Directive 2009/103 (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2018, Juliana,
C‑80/17
,
EU:C:2018:661
, paragraph
and the case-law cited).
In the third place, the interpretation adopted in paragraph 47 of this judgment also ensures the best possible compliance with the objective of guaranteeing the free movement of both vehicles normally based in the territory of the European Union and the persons who are travelling in them, which is also one of the objectives pursued by the EU legislation on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as is also apparent from recital 2 of Directive 2009/103. As the Advocate General observed in point 41 of his Opinion, it is only by ensuring robust protection of potential victims of motor vehicle accidents that it is possible to ask Member States, pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2009/103, to refrain from carrying out systematic checks on insurance against civil liability vis-à-vis vehicles entering their territory from the territory of another Member State, which is essential in order to guarantee that free movement.
In the fourth place, it is nevertheless important to note that, although registration of a vehicle certifies, in principle, that it is capable of being driven and thus of being used as a means of transport, it cannot be ruled out that a registered vehicle may, objectively, be definitively not capable of being driven on account of its poor technical state. In such a situation, in order for the considerations set out in paragraphs 48 to 52 above to be complied with, the finding that a vehicle is definitively not capable of being driven and, consequently, has lost its status as a ‘vehicle’ within the meaning of Article 1, point 1, of Directive 2009/103, must be made objectively. In the light of the case-law referred to in paragraph 46 above, it is therefore necessary, in order for such a vehicle to be exempted from the insurance obligation under the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, for it to have been officially withdrawn from use, in accordance with the applicable national rules.
In that regard, although the deregistration of the vehicle in question may constitute such an objective finding, it is nevertheless important to note that Directive 2009/103 does not regulate the manner in which such a vehicle, which is definitively unfit for its function as a means of transport, may as a matter of law be withdrawn from use. Therefore, that directive does not prohibit the official withdrawal of such a vehicle from use from being established, under the applicable national rules, other than by the deregistration of the vehicle in question.
In the light of all the foregoing, it must be held that a vehicle registered in a Member State remains subject to the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 as long as it has not been officially withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national rules.
In the present case, it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that, although, during the period at issue, the vehicle at issue in the main proceedings was immobilised in a guarded car park and was not capable of being driven due to its poor technical state, it was nevertheless still registered in a Member State, where it was therefore normally based, within the meaning of Article 1, point 4(a), of Directive 2009/103, and had not at any time during that period been officially withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national rules. Consequently, subject to the checks which it is for the referring court to carry out, it appears that, throughout that period, that vehicle continued to be covered by the insurance obligation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103, irrespective of the fact that it was on private land, that it was not capable of being driven because of its technical state and that the district intended to have that vehicle destroyed.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103 is to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of a contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is compulsory where the vehicle concerned is registered in a Member State, as long as that vehicle has not been officially withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national rules.
Costs
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted as meaning that the conclusion of contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of a motor vehicle is compulsory where the vehicle concerned is registered in a Member State, as long as that vehicle has not been officially withdrawn from use in accordance with the applicable national rules.

[Signatures]
(
*1
)	Language of the case: Polish.