Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:300
Date: 2025-04-30
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

summary of those arguments leads to the conclusion that it is necessary 
for the Court of Justice to rule on the correct interpretation of the supranational 
legislation, in particular Articles 13 and 10 of Directive 2009/103/EC, so as to 
clarify whether, in the case of claims for compensation submitted to the bodies 
responsible for compensating so-called road accident victims, the claimant – or 
the body – has the burden of proving knowledge of the stolen origin of the 
vehicle.  
5. The questions  
[…] 
[…] [questions referred for a preliminary ruling, set out in the operative part] 
6. Operative part 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Lodi, sitting as a single judge […]:  
NASTOLO 
 
9 
(A) Orders, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, that the following questions be 
referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary 
ruling concerning interpretation: 
‘1. Is Article 13 of Directive 2009/103/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, 
in the case of a road traffic accident involving a passenger travelling in a 
stolen vehicle, it is for the body responsible for providing compensation 
within the meaning of Article 10 of Directive 2009/103/EC to prove that the 
injured party knew that the vehicle had been stolen?  
2. If so, does that provision, as thus interpreted, preclude legislation, such as 
the Italian legislation, interpreted and applied as meaning that the burden of 
proof is on the injured passenger?’ 
[…] [procedure] 
(C) Stays the proceedings until such time as the decision of the Court of 
Justice has been notified. 
Lodi, 20.05.2024 
[…]