# C_2012032EN.01001002.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) — Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited

(Case C-442/10) (1)

1

(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) and Article 2(1) - Third parties victims of an accident - Express or implied authorisation to drive - Directive 90/232/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 1 - Directive 2009/103/EC - Articles 10, 12(1) and 13(1) - Victim of a road traffic accident who was a passenger in a vehicle in respect of which he was insured to drive - Vehicle driven by a person not insured under the insurance policy - Insured victim not deprived of insurance cover)

2012/C 32/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans

Applicants:

Defendants: Benjamin Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th 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) — Road accident victim who, at the time of the accident, is a passenger in the vehicle which he is insured to drive but which is being driven by an uninsured driver whom the victim had authorised to drive — Provisions of national law excluding the victim from being covered by the insurance

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1, first subparagraph, of the 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, and Article 2(1) of the 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, must be interpreted as precluding national rules the effect of which is to omit automatically the requirement that the insurer compensate a passenger who is a victim of a road traffic accident when that accident was caused by a driver who was not insured under the insurance policy and when the victim, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was insured to drive the vehicle himself but who had given permission to the driver to drive it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1, first subparagraph, of the 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, and Article 2(1) of the 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, must be interpreted as precluding national rules the effect of which is to omit automatically the requirement that the insurer compensate a passenger who is a victim of a road traffic accident when that accident was caused by a driver who was not insured under the insurance policy and when the victim, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was insured to drive the vehicle himself but who had given permission to the driver to drive it.

| 2. | The answer to the first question is not different depending on whether the insured victim was aware that the person to whom he gave permission to drive the vehicle was not insured to do so, whether he believed that the driver was insured or whether or not he had turned his mind to that question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The answer to the first question is not different depending on whether the insured victim was aware that the person to whom he gave permission to drive the vehicle was not insured to do so, whether he believed that the driver was insured or whether or not he had turned his mind to that question.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---